Rep. Issa: US Waged Possible 'Cover-Up' in Benghazi
Sunday, 05 May 2013 01:39 PM
"We can't find a classified reason for it. We can't find a diplomatic reason for it," said the Republican, appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation."
Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will begin hearings on Wednesday to find out whether there was a cover-up by the Obama administration of the attack that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
Latest: Do You Support Giving Illegals Citizenship? Vote Here Now
Gregory Hicks, who was second in command at the Benghazi mission, will testify along with Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, and Eric Nordstrom, diplomatic security officer and former regional security officer in Libya.
"I thought is was a terrorist attack from the get-go," Hicks was quoted as telling investigators. "I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning."
But U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday morning news shows five days later blaming the attack on a spontaneous protest that erupted after a similar protest in Egypt. The Egyptian protest was blamed on an anti-Muslim video made in the United States.
Prior to Rice’s appearance on "Face the Nation" at that time, Libya's newly elected president Mohamed Magarief had just told host Bob Schieffer that the attack was caused by terrorism.
For Rice to immediately contradict him was a "loss of face" in his own country and throughout the world, Hicks said. "The net impact of what has transpired is the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world has basically said that the president of Libya is either a liar or doesn't know what he's talking about.
"My jaw hit the floor as I watched this," Hicks told investigators. "I've never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day. I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate. Chris' last report — if you want to say his final report — is 'Greg, we are under attack.'"
"You can't insult a foreign leader in a greater way than happened literally here just those few days later," Issa told Schieffer on Sunday.
That slap in the face caused Magarief to delay approval of a request by the U.S. to put FBI investigators on the ground in Benghazi, Issa said.
"If you tell him he's wrong, that it's not terrorism, what a surprise that you have a hard time getting FBI to the crime scene," he said. "If anything, we may have compromised our ability to know what really happened there as far as catching the culprits, because more weeks went by with no FBI on the ground."
Hicks said he was known by people in the State Department, yet was never told Rice would appear on television and deny that an attack had taken place. Had he known in advance, he could have told her she was wrong, he said.
And Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for near-eastern affairs in the State Department didn't seem like she wanted to talk either, Hicks recalled.
Issa called the episode a "fatal error" to the U.S. relationship with Libya for at least a period of time. "And we can't find the purpose."
Issa said that the reason for the possible cover-up is likely because requests for additional security had been ignored by the State Department. "But it does seem like it's bigger than that."
There was a mentality, he said, that everyone had to pretend things were safe, that the war on terror was over. That may have caused people to say it couldn't be called terrorism, "because then the war on terror is back alive."
He said the war on terror is very much alive, "whether it's Chechen nationals that come here, or it's what's going on in Syria. It's al-Qaida around the world."
One of the issues Issa's committee will focus on is why talking points were changed in the days after the attack.
State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland had expressed fear that the talking points would be used by members of Congress to criticize the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings about the need for more security, according to Schieffer.
"We know one thing," Issa responded. "The talking points were right, and then the talking points were wrong."
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should have been "on the same sheet of music with the Libyan government," Issa said, "and she wasn't."
Hicks himself hasn't been given access to the classified report, Issa said, so his assertions that the report is wrong are based on the public report.
Issa called the State Department's probe "questionable" in that it clearly meets the statutory requirement to do an investigation, but "it doesn't answer any real questions, or place blame on people who were involved in this failure."
He described the effort by the Obama administration "a misinformation campaign at best, and a cover-up at worst."
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/RepIssa-Cover-Up-Benghazi/2013/05/05/id/502828?s=al&promo_code=13607-1#ixzz2SWQhbHTo
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Susan Rice was reporting what she was told in the briefing from CIA intelligence. The CIA lied. They lied to cover their own incompetence. I guess the argument from Hicks is that the State Dept. should not trust information received from the CIA.
ReplyDelete--David
Who ever gave the information to Rice should be hung! If it was the CIA why did Obama continue the lie for weeks. He should have been livid but he kept up the lie. That just does not make any sense. David, you are smart enough to not see through this! This administration is lying through their teeth!
ReplyDeleteHere we go again. Show me a quote from Obama where he says the attack was from protesters against the video. You can't, because he never said that. He simply called the attack an "act of terror." That was his Rose Garden speech. Go read it yourself.
ReplyDeleteSusan Rice was the only person from the administration who ever publicly suggested that the attack was a protest against the video, and she was speaking from the briefing document given her by the CIA.
--David
Check out this site. It explicitly says Obama and others were quick to point out the video was the cause. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
ReplyDeleteSusan Rice said it was a response to the video. That is what she was given by the CIA. Obama said is was an "act of terror", and never said anything otherwise to the effect that it was a response to the video. I said show me a quote where Obama says the attack was a response to the video. There is no quote from Obama in this link to that effect, because he never said it. In fact, if you listen to the "60 minutes" interview, he says nothing about the video. On the contrary, he explicitly stays that the FBI investigation is ongoing, but that this was a different type of attack than in Egypt and that "my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start." That IS a quote -- and certainly not the words I'd choose to portray the attack as a spontaneous mob protest against the video (as in Egypt).
ReplyDelete--David
Daivd, go back and read the day by day reporting of Benghazi as reported in http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
ReplyDeleteYour memory is faulty!
Nope. Memory is working just fine. From your own link...
ReplyDelete"Sept. 13: CNN reports that unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi was a “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie."
I guess none of these "State Department officials" that CNN interviewed were aware that the State Dept. was doing a cover-up by claiming the attack was a spontaneous mob reacting to the video. They didn't say that. Obama didn't say that. Hillary didn't say that. Susan Rice said it, only because that is what she was informed by the CIA. Then, here we are, two days later on Sept. 13, and the State Department officials are already correcting the CIA misinformation briefing by stating to CNN that the incident was “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie." So, tell me which of us has a faulty memory on the time-line?
--David
Here is the clip from the 13th--Sept. 13: Clinton meets with Ali Suleiman Aujali — the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. — at a State Department event to mark the end of Ramadan. Ambassador Aujali apologizes to Clinton for what he called “this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya.” Clinton, in her remarks, does not refer to it as a terrorist attack. She condemns the anti-Muslim video, but adds that there is “never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
ReplyDeleteShe (Hillary) condemns the anti-Muslim video! come on David, you are parsing the words and not the intent!
You realize, of course, that Sept 13 -- the same day Hillary was speaking -- was the same day CNN reports that unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi was a “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie." Does that sound like a cover-up to you?
ReplyDeleteClinton was saying that some Arabs will say the Benghazi attack was a justifiable response to the video. Deplorable as the video was, there is nevertheless no justification for violent acts of this kind. That is what she said. No parsing required.
--David